The Federal Reserve reduced its interest rate by 25 basis points. It is now moving in the 1.75 – 2.00% corridor. The median rate for 2019 remains at the current level, therefore no further rate cut is expected in December. The monetary policy stance would be stable for 2020 at the end of 2019 level The reference rate would go up (25 bp per year) in the 2.00-2.25% corridor in 2021 and 2.25-2.50% in 2022. The long-term trend in the fed funds rate would then be 2.5% as in June.
The Fed and it’s chairman,Jerome Powell in his press conference, recognize that the economy is going pretty well. The central bank has marginally revised upward its growth forecast for 2019 to 2.2% against 2.1%.
The logic of the US central bank is as follows: the economy is doing well but its international environment is degraded. The decline in productive investment has thus to be perceived as evidence of the negative consequences of this uncertainty on the cycle. It is to strengthen the internal dynamics against external hazards that the Fed is loosening its monetary policy. This approach is new since generally the central bank becomes more accommodative when the economic situation is frankly weaker than currently observed.
This framework also means that in the event of a higher overall uncertainty, the Fed may not respect the rate profile derived from expectations. That’s what Powell said. Trade uncertainty and weaker global growth may create the need for lower rates to support domestic demand.
The main concern with such an approach is that the indicators of US economic policy are already very accommodative while the economy is at the peak of the cycle. The public deficit is $ 1,000 billion over one year in August and the real fed funds rate is now almost 0%. What mode of regulation will it be necessary to put in place during the economic downturn that will not fail to happen? I anticipate a sharp slowdown in the second half of 2020. Will the public deficit rise to 6 or 7% of GDP and the Fed rate land in negative territory?
Finally, we note that the measure taken does not reflect an unanimous vote . James Bullard wanted to go further while Esther George and Eric Rosengren were in favor of the status quo. As with the ECB, the measures taken no longer succeed in silencing differences. Behaviors change because the diagnosis is not so uniform.